Repent at Leisure
The Observer’s Nicole Mowbray reveals the hitherto-unguessed fact that poor fashion choices can have practical consequences:
After seven unsuccessful job interviews, 24-year-old Luke Clark began to think something other than his CV was playing havoc with his job prospects. Potential employers didn’t seem to like the 4cm “flesh tunnel” holes he had in each ear as much as he did. Clark had begun stretching his lobes at university several years earlier, and the problem was that when he took the plugs out his stretched earlobes looked terrible. Now one of the fastest-growing cosmetic procedures in the UK is repairing stretched earlobes.
Several readers of said paper are, however, quite upset. Specifically, they’re upset that not all employers are impressed, either by the Urban Bush Warrior look or by self-inflicted comedy lobes with large, baggy holes in them:
It’s just a bigger hole than what society has considered to be “standard” and judging someone’s ability to do a job based on their outward appearance is incredibly ignorant… If there wasn’t such a pointlessly negative view on stretched ears, people like teachers and professional golf players wouldn’t have to get them sewn up.
Possibly a contender for our series of classic sentences.
And this chap here, he’s upset too:
Until you know that person, you have no right to criticise, judge or alter the life chances for them. Those who make decisions about the future of others based only on appearance, are themselves the shallowest of people, and do not deserve to have such a position of influence.
You see, he should be free to deform his anatomy into eye-catchingly unattractive shapes, thereby announcing his heroic radicalism and disdain for bourgeois norms, entirely without consequence. But you mustn’t be free to run your business without him, regardless of whatever message he’s chosen to send via the medium of disfigured earlobes. No bad decision that he makes must ever “alter his life chances” because… well, obviously, it’s all your fault.
And so we’re expected to believe that Mr Clark, who chose to make a bold statement by deliberately stretching and deforming his earlobes – to the extent that a jar of instant coffee could almost fit through the holes – is somehow being wronged, indeed oppressed, when, during job interviews, potential employers notice – and find inappropriate – the bold statement he’s chosen to make. Having decided at university to scandalise the less daring whenever in public, he now seems surprised when those same less daring people make choices of their own, i.e., not to hire him. But aren’t their raised eyebrows and looks of disgust what he wanted all along?
Are you sure?
Fairly sure, yes.
Why not ask …?
Maybe, I will – but why don’t you answer my question first?:
Would you, for example, register surprise or not if you were recruiting someone for a job in an office who came to the interview wearing jeans, trainers and a Hong Kong Phooey T-Shirt?
“Would you, for example, register surprise or not if you were recruiting someone for a job in an office who came to the interview wearing jeans, trainers and a Hong Kong Phooey T-Shirt?”
Is this really a pressing question? Yes, I would register surprise. I might ask him why he had turned out like that too.
Numbers are hardly the point, but what I was getting at is that Jews can choose to convert to non-Jews. I think you are arguing that since they can, it is reasonable to discriminate against those that choose not to.
Some rabbinical schools would differ with your view. I take it you think you know better than a rabbinical court who is a Jew of not.
“Some rabbinical schools would differ with your view. I take it you think you know better than a rabbinical court who is a Jew of not.”
I think you are dodging the point. If a Jew could stop being a Jew (as the Spanish Inquisition amongst many others has believed), should an employer be entitled to demand it? If not, your entire argument collapses it seems to me.
Why not ask instead of making such broad generalisations(sic)
Broad generalisations such as the ones you’ve made throughout?
That cat-bloke who topped himself- he kind of proves Steve2’s point. There would probably be a job for earlobe-stretcher Luke Clark in IT if only the poor bugger knew how to code.
I think you are dodging the point.
Wow. Irony overload.
“That cat-bloke who topped himself- he kind of proves Steve2’s point.”
Because non-pierced, non-tattooed men in business suits never make an early appointment with unknowing?
Minnow – there is good discrimination and bad discrimination.
Here’s a ready reckoner I use:
Bad discrimination –
Race
Sex
Religion
Sexual orientation
Good discrimination –
Fat people
Unattractive people
Bad attitude
Body modifications / weird people
Ability
Age
Can’t speak English properly
Yes, I would register surprise. I might ask him why he had turned out like that too.
Well, to slightly adapt an earlier comment appearing in this thread:
I don’t see on what basis you are deciding which are the right, permissible kind [of clothes to wear] and which are the wrong kind, so it just looks like old fashioned prejudice.
Of course, you do say that you would enquire to find out why – but that begs the further question that – bearing in mind we are talking about an office job here – what answer could the candidate possibly give that would satisfy you that they would be suitable to fill the post?
Do tell.
I think the same person just said
We are still largely managed by people for whom the right appearance and background matter more than ability or productivity
and
Why not ask instead of making such broad generalisations
Anyway my irony-ometer broke
“I don’t see on what basis you are deciding which are the right, permissible kind [of clothes to wear] and which are the wrong kind, so it just looks like old fashioned prejudice.”
Surprise isn’t a value judgement. I don’t think you have thought this through.
Surprise isn’t a value judgement.
Then wherefore the surprise?
If no judgement is made, no evaluation of marked / unmarked; normative / deviant etc. then why the surprise?
I don’t think you have thought this through.
Anyway, I’m off to the pub – enjoy your evening.
In case the original point of the discussion has been lost in the thrilling to-and-fro, here’s a brief recap for newcomers. Mr Clark has chosen to make a statement by deliberately stretching and deforming his ear lobes – to the point where a jar of instant coffee could almost fit through the holes. Is he right to feel wronged when, during job interviews, potential employers notice – and find inappropriate – the statement that he’s chosen to make?
David – Well, I’m torn.
On the one hand, there are questions of standards in the workplace, the employer’s concerns with what message the appearance of staff communicates to customers, and the natural human yuck factor.
On the other, tattooed, modified hand, we have minnow’s argument, which I may summarise as:
you don’t like weird ear stretchers so… something something… you’re a Jew-hater and a racist.
It’s an ethical pickle.
I’m getting into the spirit of things…
There is an Helf an Sayfty issue here.
A loopy earlobe could easily get caught up on equipment, machinery, somebody’s pen as they walk past etc.
Whose fault would it be?
Can I see opportunities for claims here?
Away with you you loopy-lobed candidate. Too risky for me!
Minnow
I think you are dodging the point. If a Jew could stop being a Jew (as the Spanish Inquisition amongst many others has believed), should an employer be entitled to demand it?
A Jew can’t stop being a Jew if it’s through matrilineal descent, which the Beth Din would confirm. The employer could not demand the Jew becomes a non-Jew as it would be impossible and would anyway be illegal if a condition of employment. Your argument is silly, shallow sophistry. Just as it always is.
Anyone stupid enough to permanently disfigure his own body because it makes him look “cool” to his peers is a moron, by definition, and morons make bad employees.
Bitty fish, your protestations are as hollow as they are predictable. Those kinds of fashion statements scream “I haven’t grown up yet! I’m still rebelling against daddy!”
Which, that’s exactly what the disfigurements are INTENDED to communicate; it’s not prejudice on my part. How we choose to adorn ourselves is a message to the rest of the crowd, so don’t get all snippy if your choice communicates exactly what it was meant to communicate.
Furthermore, the reason that tribal folks adopted disfigurements such as lip plates and brass neck rings was to make themselves undesirable to slave traders, IOW, useless to those who wanted laborers.
And the shallow hipsters who adopt those same “fashion statements” are surprised that it has the same effect?
Again, morons, and therefore bad hires.
He dicho.
This thread’s so long I didn’t read it all, and I’ve just noticed that David has made the same point I was about to, about three comments up. But to recap:
Why do they tell us they’re wearing odd clothes, or mutilating themselves? “To make a statement”, right? e.g., “I’m, like, a total rebel who doesn’t care about the bourgeois conventions of the man, man”.
So someone hears that statement and decides that the person making it may not be the best candidate to be a bank clerk or a policeman or whatever, doesn’t hire him, and he gets all upset.
But someone in a suit and tie is making a statement too. He’s saying, “You want someone who’ll slot into this business without any trouble and do the job you ask? I’m your man”. Tough decision, eh?
Hmmph.
Aside from Minnow totally missing the point—no surprise there—that article also totally misses the point, and thus actually isn’t worth any of the commentary . . .
—Aside from mebbe haranguing on the Observer missing the point, and I’ll settle for the easy punchline of Who observes the Observer? . . .
After seven unsuccessful job interviews, . . .
For. Bloody. What. Sort. Of. Work.?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!
A number of years ago—and the fellow was last heard having moved to Mexico, so I have no idea what he’s been up to recently—there was a computer admin community leader, quite successful businessman, professional I.T., where among all his other regular successes, he had the regular business of strolling into a company that was having ongoing computer issues. He would interview from top to bottom. He would assess from one end to another what the company needed. He would then design and build a complete new set of computers—if needed–a complete change of operating systems, assorted software running on them, reset all sorts of procedures . . . . and at no time would the company shut down or otherwise alter what the company did, as the entire company was migrated over to the all new and much better systems . . . .
Oh, by the way, as a rather minor issue, he also had a hobby of how many new rings he could add as piercings to his ears and other parts of his head . . .
Now, as David has noted at some point in that wall o’ text up there, if Mr. Clark was applying to be a body double for the Prince Of Wales . . . or any other related position . . . well, gee, I couldn’t get that one—I’m told the accent wanders in and out, and my ears are more pointed than elephantine and haven’t been perforated, but particularly I have the family history established rather bald scalp.
Of the fellow in the Army that the Observer story tells of, beards breaking breathing mask seals are a reason that fire fighters have a definite tendency to not have beards.
But we’re not told that Mr. Clarke is trying for some Army or fire fighting position, or what he’s trying for at all . . . . . . .
All in all at best, the article provides an excellent example of Hitchcock’s McGuffin . . but that’s about it . . .
Mr Clark has chosen to make a statement by deliberately stretching and deforming his ear lobes – to the point where a jar of instant coffee could almost fit through the holes.
Or a fairly big pepper mill.
If a Jew could stop being a Jew (as the Spanish Inquisition amongst many others has believed)
Oh, this is a good one.
The Spanish Inquisition (wholly unexpected) was a political thing, not religious or ethnic. Forcing the conversos to abandon their rites was to solve the loyalty problem, los Reyes Católicos having just expelled the Moors from Granada.
Isabella wanted to ensure that every soul in Christian Spain was foursquare behind her and Fernando. Because Jews are always being suspected of dual loyalties, the Inquisition sought to “un-Jew” them to bring them into line with the New Bosses.
But even the Inquisitors didn’t believe that their physical Jewish lineage was snuffed out, else they might have attempted exsanguination to “cure” their badthink.
Edith Stein converted and became a Carmelite nun. She was still Jewish enough for the nazis to gas her in Auschwitz.
And now that I’ve read through the wall of text rather than just skimmed . . .
Lancastrian Oik: Look At Me- Celebrating the Self in Modern Britain
Hmmmmm . . . . That looks interesting. Thank you for the reference! I’ll have to add that to my collection.
Dr Cromarty: Does getting things arseways round come naturally or do you practice?
Oh, as far as we can tell, he practices on us.
I have told my children that those kind of fashion choices tell the world you don’t want a corner office at IBM.
If somebody decided to get negroplasty…
Negroplasty. I had no idea they can do this now. I’m glad I live in the 21st century. It truly is an age of Miracle and Wonder
Or a fairly big pepper mill.
Or a 50cl water bottle.
Or a 50cl water bottle.
Or vacuum cleaner attachments.
Why can’t I refuse to hire black people, or lesbians, or crusties with huge holes in their lugs? I can see why I shouldn’t refuse to hire people based on spurious criteria like this, because a) it’s an unpleasant thing to do and b) it’s counterproductive to discriminate on such things which may have no bearing on the person’s ability to do the job. But why should it be a matter of law? Why is bigotry not merely immoral, but illegal?
I’m someone with quite a lot of visible piercings; and I have never had any problems finding work. This is largely because I have demonstrable skills, and also because I have avoided applying for positions in organisations run by appearance-driven wankers.
Nowadays it is me who does the employing, and I employ people with skills; with almost no regard for appearance. I do however have the luxury of operating in an entirely unglamourous industry, where my customers want tangible benefits and not a shiny-suited salesman in a leased base-spec Audi.
2 examples of sexism.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-16/women-dislike-having-female-bosses-more-than-men-do
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390425/students-transgender-woman-cant-be-diversity-officer-because-shes-white-man-now
Slightly OT here, but I note that Minnow is usually refered to as he. Do we know this for a fact or is it guesswork?
I ask because whenever I read one of Minnows comments I always assume it’s from a woman. Something about the style of argument screams female to me.
Now this is undoubtedly horribly sexist, but in my defence I’m quite old now and was brought up in simpler times. And I also have three sisters, a (sadly late) mother and (briefly) a wife,
It once made reference to a wife, but perhaps I was wrong in deriving anything from such. Reads much more like a man to me, be it a worthless one. One who probably derives much pleasure in the resulting speculation.
Look! A nutcracker!
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2014/10/not-quite-sure-i-get-what-this-piece-is-going-for/
Hugs,
-S
Friday Night Smoke,
and also because I have avoided applying for positions in organisations run by appearance-driven wankers.
And the chaps who spend years stretching their ears to look something like this, thereby drawing attention to their imagined rebelliousness – they aren’t and could never be “appearance-driven wankers”?
Interesting theory.
24 year old Mr Clark needs to get some perspective. I’ve had considerably more than just seven interviews without getting the job at the end of it. I have many years of experience, the correct qualifications, and much extra curricular and community activities to gain even more transferable skills, and a perfectly neutral business like appearance, and I’m still not being successful. Once he reaches 100 interviews for jobs where his appearance is appropriate, perhaps he will then have reason to complain.
There is a constant push back of course, over time, and what seemed outlandish a generation ago (hair over the tops of his ears!) will seem mundane in the next? But what a waste of energy and talent in the meantime.
This is a curious statement from Minnow. Here he is explicitly recognising that society has a means of correcting itself without Guardian readers having to write stupid articles let alone pass laws. Good man. Now pass on the message to your comrades.
I first assumed that Minnow was female as well.
SO passive-aggressive, but I guess the castrati on the Left ape Their Betters to prevent further detachment of precious organs.
So sad.
Kevin B
I know exactly what you mean. When I saw Minnow referred to as a man, it surprised me.
I am male, 3 brothers and no sisters but a wife and daughter (sons as well but nobody is perfect)
David,
Of course there is a limit. I haven’t done anything ‘irreversible’ as that gentleman has and I would strongly advise people against that.
Also for the avoidance of doubt, I consider that who someone chooses to employ, and for what reasons, are their own damn business. That does not stop me from having an opinion on the excessively strict policies of some employers, though.
I first assumed that Minnow was female as well. SO passive-aggressive
I ask because whenever I read one of Minnows comments I always assume it’s from a woman. Something about the style of argument screams female to me
Yes lots of implications – leaving one to flounder about guessing whatever (s)he is talking about. But I too do passive aggressive sometimes, or maybe in my case it is the bland, annoyingly unruffled way I try to do it.
But I’m not sure. There’s a certain obsessiveness about the theory – more a male thing if you ask me.
Anyway can I mention that when I argue with Minnow, the response is always an instantaneous reply to someone else’s point. Mine always go unanswered by him/her. I don’t mind, but it’s a bit of a pattern, therefore interesting – to me at least.
Friday Night Smoke,
Of course there is a limit. I haven’t done anything ‘irreversible’ as that gentleman has and I would strongly advise people against that.
To be clear, I’ve no strong feeling about employers’ dress codes in general or how people choose to adorn their own anatomy, beyond noting a certain absurdity and neediness at the extremes. People can stick pins in their eyes if that’s what gets them hot – though they should think twice before complaining about employers being deterred by it. But it seemed important to recognise that people who indulge in ostentatious body modification are very much interested in their appearance and the effect it has on others. At least as much as the besuited “wankers” to which you refer.
For me, Minnow comes across as some sort of experimental Turing-bot, armed with phrases like “you might not have thought this through”. Like the HAL 9000, he is, for all practical purposes, “incapable of error”.
“I first assumed that Minnow was female as well. SO passive-aggressive”
This is ‘passive aggressive’ used in the special internet sense of ‘not aggressive even when I am’. But I don’t think I have said whether I am a man or a woman.Happy to be considered either.
“The Spanish Inquisition (wholly unexpected) was a political thing, not religious or ethnic.”
Snork. You mean ‘not religious’ in the sense that Isis is non-religious.
Oh, lord. This one’s going to run to several pages, isn’t it?
[ Reaches for coffee. ]
I ask because whenever I read one of Minnows comments I always assume it’s from a woman. Something about the style of argument screams female to me.
Kevin B | October 20, 2014 at 23:11
Glad somebody said it. IIRC Minnow said something about having an eng lit / humanities background, which is pretty strong evidence in itself, though I don’t mean to suggest that it’s a matter of much significance.
OT
But I don’t think I have said whether I am a man or a woman.
Just for the record, you have actually, but it was ages ago. I apologised at the time for having previously referred to you as a ‘she’ after it transpired you are in fact a ‘he’. (I forgot recently, referring to you as ‘she’)
Incidentally, I’d thought you were a ‘she’ because I could have sworn you’d once refereed to yourself using the phrase ‘As a mother, I say X, Y, Z to my children’ but that turned out to have been my memory playing me false.
I really don’t think men or women are really any different to be honest, and certainly not when it comes to written discussions of this kind, so that it would be impossible to tell either way going only on the evidence of these comments.
“I really don’t think men or women are really any different to be honest, and certainly not when it comes to written discussions of this kind, so that it would be impossible to tell either way going only on the evidence of these comments.”
We agree completely about something at last! I do get the impression tat some people on here think ‘you are a girl’ is a mortal insult, though.
I do get the impression tat some people on here think ‘you are a girl’ is a mortal insult, though.
Names please.
I’m sure you can spot the culprits SVH.